Fort Worth City Council Special Called Meeting – June 2, 2026
Fort Worth City Council Special Called Meeting – June 2, 2026
The Fort Worth City Council held a special called meeting on Tuesday, June 2, 2026, at the City Council Chamber to consider a single agenda item: adopting an ordinance to suspend proposed rate increases by SiEnergy Gas, LLC, and authorizing retention of legal counsel and consultants to evaluate those rates. The meeting was called to order at 1:50 p.m. (the agenda listed 1:45 p.m.) and adjourned at approximately 1:54 p.m.
Public Comments & Testimony
- Adrian Smith (District 6 resident, self-described as "one with the people") spoke in opposition to M&C 26-0407. He argued the litigation wastes taxpayer dollars, suggested the council either misunderstands agreements or seeks to remedy previous bad decisions, and criticized the mayor's "top-down" governing approach.
- Smith raised questions about the likelihood of resolution within the 90-day window before rate increases take effect, asked why the city does not consider another energy provider, and expressed concern about contracting with LLCs due to limited liability.
Discussion Items
- Council Member Beck made a motion to approve M&C 26-0407 and adopt Ordinance No. 28529-06-2026, seconded by Council Member Martinez.
- No further council discussion was reported in the minutes or transcript.
Key Outcomes
- The motion passed 8-0. Council Members Lauersdorf (District 4), Peoples (District 5), and Hall (District 6) were absent. Mayor Pro Tem Flores and Council Members Crain, Hill, Nettles, Beck, Jamieson, and Martinez voted in favor.
Meeting Transcript
Good afternoon. I will call our special called council meeting to order. Turn it back over to Jeanette. Council, we have one item today. Uh MNC 26-0407. And Mayor, I believe we have one speaker. Thank you, Jeanette. Our speaker is Adrian Smith. Adrian Smith, District 6, I am one with the people. The current litigation that this council is due to vote on, which in turn is our tax dollars once again being wasted, speaks two things. Either it doesn't understand the real process for how agreements work, or is seeking to remedy previous bad decision making made because of how they typically typically vote. The long-term agreements for things that hasn't been proven. Oh, overall, overall consideration for we the people. When is enough enough? When is enough enough? This top-down approach for governing that's been driven by this mayor since she's been in office has cost us more than help. What's the dollar amount threshold for this litigation that the count that this council will stop at? If it's proven in court in the court of law that the litigation being considered holds no merit, I'm sure the law firm or attorneys who will represent the city in this litigation will not tell the truth. If there's clear evidence of the city not winning, they will milk the cow for what it's worth because it's a guaranteed payday. And I did get the communication uh language regarding this particular agenda item you all do to vote on, although it states that there will be a reimbursement uh to the city for legal and consulting costs for this said matter. My question to the city is to you all is um why why are we even going here? I mean, what's what's the what's the real chance that this matter will be resolved within the 90-day time window that rate increases will take place afterwards? What's what's the real chances? It's you're only giving it a 90-day window. So what's the chances that this will be litigated in the 90 day uh time window? A second question is what's keeping the city from considering another energy provider for you know said services, and what are we doing as a city in regulation for future business dealings that possibly will go awry? And any company that operates under LLC, I always say red flags, red flags, because we know if you operate under LLC, there is limited liability when it comes to litigation matters if the company is said to lose on their end. So maybe we need to try to move away from dealing with these LLCs and find another path for um contracts that we give out as a city. Council that's conclusion of our speakers on this item. Got a motion and a second, any their discussion. Please vote. All right. Motion carries. And meeting is adjourned at 154.
openpublica.com